Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (2 December) . . Page.. 4352 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

We also had debate at the round table discussion in relation to the proposal that quarterly performance reports be tabled in the Assembly. The overall intention of this is very good. There should be accountability to the Assembly and the public on a regular basis about how the Government is going in terms of implementing policy and delivering services of the highest quality to the ACT community. Obviously, how that information is presented is critical. The last thing we want is for bureaucrats to spend endless numbers of hours preparing glossy brochures that reveal very little about what is really going on.

I have discussed the issue of performance indicators on a number of occasions and they have been the subject of nearly every Estimates Committee report. Obviously, we do need better quality of life benchmarks in the form of social and environmental indicators. I think there is general agreement to have a fairly flexible approach to the implementation of the requirement to prepare quarterly departmental performance reports, with the Assembly providing feedback on what is useful.

MR OSBORNE (8.49): I do not intend to speak for long on this Bill, but I want to make a few observations about it generally. Mr Speaker, section 83 of the Constitution says:

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury of the Commonwealth except under appropriation made by law.

The spirit of the law is clear - that money raised from the people can be spent only after the purposes for which it is to be spent have been properly examined and approved by the people's representatives in parliament. It is perhaps the most important provision of the Constitution, and it is there to ensure that we do not become a banana republic. Unfortunately, Mr Speaker, around Australia today governments have found too many slick ways to bypass this crystal clear direction. In the main, governments do not breach the letter of the law but do throttle its spirit.

I will give you one example. In the Commonwealth there is a practice known as standing appropriations. That is when public money is spent year in, year out, without reference to the Parliament. In the early years of Federation standing appropriations made up 10 per cent of the Commonwealth budget. By 1992-93 that figure had risen to a staggering 74 per cent. I wonder how many Australians are aware that each year when the Federal Treasurer brings down his budget he is discussing only the tip, a mere 26 per cent, of the iceberg of total government expenditure. It is a disgrace and is yet another example of how badly this country's democratic systems have been served under the so-called leadership of the two major parties.

In discussing standing appropriations, the eighth edition of Odgers' Australian Senate Practice says:

It is no answer that other countries have extensively used standing appropriations. This means only that other countries have made the same mistake. Generally speaking they have not made the same mistake to the same extent. In the United Kingdom standing appropriations account for only 24 per cent of government expenditure.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .